2025 INSC 608 Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 1 of 18

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO (S). 280 of 2019

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA

THROUGH DIRECTOR, CBI …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J .

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Patna whereby appeal filed by

the Appellant against the order of conviction and

sentence dated 26.06.2015 by the Learned Special

Judge CBI-II, Patna stands dismissed. The Appellant

herein was convicted under Section 407, 420, 465,

471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred

as “IPC”) and punished for sentences for the said

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 2 of 18

offences to run concurrently with fine and default

stipulations in following manner: -

Provision Imprisonment Fine In Default

Section 407 5 years RI Rs. 25,000/- 6 Months SI

Section 420 5 years RI Rs. 25,000/- 6 Months SI

Section 465 2 years RI Rs. 5,000/- 3 Months SI

Section 471 2 years RI Rs. 5,000/- 3 Months SI

2. The facts in brief leading to the registration of a case

against the Appellant was a complaint lodged by the

Executive Engineer, Saharsa Division stating therein

that a supply order no. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994 has

been placed for supply of 1091.95 MT of Bulk

Bitumen valued at INR 54,07,920/- (Rupees Fifty-

Four Lakhs, Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and

Twenty Only) which, as a matter of fact, was forged

and without proper sanction, delivery of which was

taken by M/s Cosmo Transport from Indian Oil

Corporation (IOC), Haldia and was required to be

delivered to the Road Construction Department

(RCD), Saharsa Division but was not so delivered.

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 3 of 18

3. The said complaint was registered as PS Case No.

291/96 leading to the investigation wherein four

persons were identified/arrayed as accused. Krishna

Kumar Kedia, proprietor of M/s Cosmo Transport,

the Appellant herein was the main accused and

Maheshwari Prasad, Panchu Mahto and Bhagwan

Prasad Poddar were accused no. 2, 3 and 4

respectively. It would not be out of way to mention

here that Panchu Mahto (Accused No. 3) was the

officer who managed things and passed the working

order nominating M/s Cosmo Transport for

transportation of the aforesaid Bulk Bitumen

whereas Bhagwan Prasad Poddar (Accused No. 4)

was an Executive Engineer and the informant of

Saharsa PS Case No. 291/26 . Maheshwari Prasad

was a person who according to the prosecution had

prepared, forged and fabricated documents at the

instance of Krishna Kumar Kedia, the proprietor of

M/s Cosmo Transport, who was the mastermind and

main accused in the misappropriation of the entire

quantity of Bulk Bitumen.

4. During the course of trial, Panchu Mahto (Accused

No. 3) and Bhagwan Prasad Poddar (Accused No. 4)

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 4 of 18

died leading to the dropping of the proceedings

against them. Accused No. 2, Maheshwari Prasad

was granted pardon and turned approver who

appeared as PW-5. Appellant was thus, the only

person who faced the trial wherein he was held guilty

of having committed offences under Section 407,

420, 465, 471 of IPC.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has

referred to the evidence of the witnesses and

thereafter put forth the following submissions:

i) There is no evidence on record to show that the

wrongful gain has been obtained by the Appellant

and corresponding wrongful loss has been caused

to the State of Bihar. The ingredients of the

offences for which the Appellants has been

convicted have not been proved rather the

evidence does not support the same. No loss has

been caused to the Government Exchequer as the

same has not been proved by the prosecution.

ii) The mere statement of Maheshwari Prasad, (PW-

5) accused turned approver with regard to the

forged and fabricated documents which contains

his signatures as has been stated by him cannot

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 5 of 18

be relied upon. Merely because the alleged person

Mr. MP Sinha, the Executive Engineer had denied

his signatures would not be enough. No

independent witness has been produced such as

handwriting expert, nor has any report been

placed on record which would establish the

signatures to be not that of the person concerned.

iii) The evidence which has been produced, by the

prosecution fails to establish that the Appellant

had any knowledge or belief with regard to the

documents being forged which were being used for

lifting the Bulk Bitumen from the Indian Oil

Corporation, Haldia.

iv) Similarly, nothing has come on record which

would establish that there was forgery and

unauthorized order for supply of Bulk Bitumen at

the end of the department without there being any

demand.

v) The Indian Oil Corporation does not allow lifting

of Bulk Bitumen without proper authorization and

in any case after the lifting of the consignment the

same was delivered at the godown at Saharsa with

the receipt having been issued on the Consignee

Receipt Certificate (CRC).

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 6 of 18

6. Prayer has thus been made for setting aside the

conviction and sentence and acquitting the Appellant

of the charges by allowing the present appeal.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant in alternatively

prayed that a lenient view may be taken in terms of

sentence, in case the conviction is upheld. She

contends that the alleged occurrence in the present

case is of 1993-94 i.e. more than 30 years old and the

present case has caused tremendous mental agony

to the Petitioner for the last more than the 25 years.

The Appellant is 71 years old infirm person suffering

from various old age ailments. He had already

undergone more than 1 year and 6 months of actual

custody period at the time of grant of bail by this

Court.

8. On the other hand, Learned Additional Solicitor

General, appearing for the State has supported the

judgement of High Court. His submissions are as

follows: -

(i) while referring to the evidence as led by the

prosecution and submitted that during the course of

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 7 of 18

investigation it transpired that at the instance of the

Appellant, an Order was created to be placed for

supply of Bulk Bitumen by forging the signatures of

Mr. MP Sinha, Executive Engineer of Saharsa

Division.

(ii) The Appellant authorized two of his office

employees namely Ashish Maity (PW-13) and Sudip

Chakrawarti (PW-25) to lift the consignment of Bulk

Bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation at Haldia.

These persons appeared in Court and proved the

factum of receipt of Bitumen from the Indian Oil

Corporation at Haldia, which was sent to Alampur,

Kolkata. They also proved the signatures on the

authorization letter issued and signed by the

Appellant in their presence.

(iii) Maheshwari Prasad who was initially an

accused but had turned approver, appeared as PW-5

and admitted that he had affixed forged signatures of

Mr. MP Sinha, Executive Engineer, Saharsa Division

on the authority letter on various Consignee Receipt

Certificate (CRC) on the instructions of the Appellant

for which he was paid. The factum of the forged

signatures on the orders for supply of Bulk Bitumen

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 8 of 18

has also been established on the admission of this

witness.

(iv) Apart from that, it is asserted that the

signatures on the Orders placed for Bulk Bitumen

were of Panchu Mahto, Director, Purchase and

Transport, Head Office, RCD, Patna and Bhagwan

Prasad Poddar, Executive Engineer, RCD, Saharsa

Division, arrayed as Accused No. 3 and 4

respectively, stands established on the basis of the

evidence led by the prosecution, which factum in any

case is not disputed as it is admitted case of the

Appellant that it is on the basis of those orders that

the delivery of the consignment was taken. Prayer

has thus been made for dismissal of the appeal as

being devoid of merit.

9. After hearing the submission of both the parties, the

contention of the Counsel for the Appellant cannot be

accepted in the light of the fact that the author of the

document Maheshwari Prasad , the approver (PW-5)

himself has acknowledged the said fact that he had

forged the signatures of Mr. MP Sinha, the Executive

Engineer at the behest of the Appellant and further

the person who is alleged to have signed the said

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 9 of 18

document has denied the signatures of being his. No

dent has been created in the cross-examination with

regard to the evidence led by the prosecution.

10. The case of the prosecution rests not only upon the

evidence of Maheshwari Prasad, the accused turned

approver who had forged and fabricated the

documents on the asking of the appellant but also on

the documentary evidence produced to substantiate

the allegations apart from the oral evidence of the

witnesses. As many as 26 prosecution witnesses were

examined.

11. The case of the prosecution was that without there

being any demand for supply of Bulk Bitumen from

the Road Construction Department, Saharsa Division

to the Head Office, the Head Office proceeded to issue

a supply order No. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994 which

was by Panchu Mahto (Accused No 3) since deceased.

It came to light that this order had been placed

without taking mandatory approval from the

Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,

Saharsa Division. The order for transportation was

placed by the then Executive Engineer, Bhagwan

Prasad Poddar (Accused No. 3) since deceased with

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 10 of 18

M/s Cosmo Transport. Not only was the said bulk

order placed but another authority letter no. 104,

Sahasra dated 19.04.1995 for release of 10% extra

Bulk Bitumen was also falsely created by means of

committing forgery.

12. Therefore, the Bulk Bitumen and the 10% extra

quantity thereof was lifted from Haldia delivery point

and the same was siphoned off illegally. The

documents which have been created as forged and

fabricated at the instance of the accused were signed

by Maheshwari Prasad. It has come in the evidence

as also in the documents produced that 20 forged

signatures of the Executive Engineer, Mr. MP Sinha,

were forged by Maheshwari Prasad which were duly

exhibited.

13. MP Sinha, Executive Engineer (PW-3) has appeared

and denied the signatures to be his on the said

documents and has positively stated that they do not

belong to him. With the author of the said signatures

(Maheshwari Prasad - PW5) having acknowledged the

said factum of forging signatures, the prosecution

had been successful in establishing the forgery at the

behest of the Appellant. In the cross-examination no

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 11 of 18

dent has been created with regard to the evidence of

the witnesses.

14. Not only this, witnesses have been produced who

were employees/representatives of M/s Cosmo

Transport who have also acknowledged the fact that

they had received Bulk Bitumen from Haldia on

behalf of the M/s Cosmo Transport Company.

Manas Saha (PW-11), an employee of M/s Cosmo

Transport Company from 1984 -95 stated that the

company was mainly engaged in transportation of

Bulk Bitumen. The Appellant had executed power of

attorney in his favour and on the basis thereof, he

used to go to the oil company wherefrom CRC,

delivery order was being issued. He had further

stated that he had gone with the supply order no.

413(E) dated 17.01.1994, RCD, Saharsa Division and

had lifted Bulk Bitumen in total quantity. Thereafter,

he sold it to factory located at Alampur, Kolkata on

the instruction of the Appellant. During cross-

examination he had stated that the aforesaid Bulk

Bitumen was sold in his presence.

15. It has also come in the evidence that after loading of

the Bulk Bitumen, on the directions of the Appellant

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 12 of 18

the vehicles were being sent to Howrah as well as

Alampur which indicated that the Bulk Bitumen was

not sent to Saharsa Division where it was intended to

be delivered as per the order placed at Indian Oil

Corporation, Haldia. Ashish Maity (PW-13) had

stated that in the year 1993 -94, he was

representative of M/s Cosmo Transport to receive

Bulk Bitumen from Haldia on behalf of M/s Cosmo

Transport. He further stated that after loading of bulk

bitumen, as per direction of the Appellant the vehicle

was being sent to Howrah as well as Alampur.

16. Sudip Chakarwarti (PW-25), had deposed that he had

worked under M/s Cosmo Transport from 1993-97.

Ashish Maity (PW-13) used to receive the bulk

bitumen on behalf of M/s Cosmo Transport. He used

to receive the same under authorization letter being

issued by the Appellant in favour of Ashish Maity and

Tapan Poddar. The authorization letter was exhibited

during Trial. He had further stated that after lifting

the bulk bitumen from Haldia, the same was sent to

Alampur, Kolkata.

17. The factum with regard to non-receipt of the Bulk

Bitumen at Saharsa Division has also been

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 13 of 18

established from the evidence of the departmental

employees which include various Junior Engineers

who were working at the relevant time as also the

Assistant Engineers, who have all, on the basis of the

documentary evidence established non-receipt of any

Bulk Bitumen during the period when the Bulk

Bitumen delivery was taken from Haldia.

18. PW-6, PW-9 and PW-20 are Junior Engineers who

were posted at Saharsa Division during the relevant

time. They deposed that after receipt of bulk bitumen

the same is being entered in the stock register. The

stock register of all the junior engineers of different

sub-divisions happens to be independent. They had

further stated that they had not received bitumen in

pursuance of supply order no. 413(E) dated

17.01.1994 and also exhibited Stock Account

Register of their respective sub-divisions. There was

no entry inconsonance with supply order no. 413(E)

dated 17.01.1994 because of the fact that there was

no supply against the aforesaid order.

19. PW-7, PW-10, PW-17 and PW-18 had deposed that

they were Assistant Engineers at RCD, Saharsa

Division during relevant time and during their

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 14 of 18

tenure, they had not received bulk bitumen relating

to supply order no. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994.

20. Similarly, evidence of the PW-14, PW-20, PW-22 who

were Executive Engineers as also the PW-2, PW-15,

the officials of the accounts branch has also come on

record which would indicate that there was no

demand for supply of Bulk Bitumen or that there was

even any requirement for the same.

21. All these aspects establish the fact with regard to

there being absence of any requirement, demand or

even delivery of Bulk Bitumen in pursuance to

unauthorized order no. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994 for

supply of Bulk Bitumen relating to Road

Construction Department, Saharsa Division.

22. Another aspect which comes to light is the statement

of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of CrPC.

What is apparent from his statement on perusal

would be that the factum of an order being there for

supply of Bulk Bitumen which was made the basis

for receiving the supply product i.e. Bulk Bitumen

from Haldia by M/s Cosmo Transport stands

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 15 of 18

admitted. Even the receipt of the full quantity of the

said Bulk Bitumen stands acknowledged.

23. What has been sought to be projected by the

Appellant is that the said Bulk Bitumen has been

duly supplied at Road Construction Department,

Saharsa Division. The evidence sought to be relied

upon by the Appellant is the Consignee Receipt

Certificates (CRCs), which, as per the evidence on

record, is a forged and fabricated document, created

at the behest of the Appellant and signed by

Maheshwari Prasad (PW-5), the approver. On the

basis of the above evidence, which has been led by

the prosecution, the courts below having considered

in detail the evidence have found the Appellant guilty

of the charges levelled against him leading to his

conviction and sentence. This is being sought to be

challenged in the present appeal which we found to

be without any basis.

24. As stated above, the non-receipt of Bulk Bitumen

stands established at the end of the Prosecution

leading to the guilt of the Appellant having been

established. No admissible evidence has been

produced by the Appellant in respect of due delivery

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 16 of 18

of Bulk Bitumen to Road Construction Department,

Saharsa Division after having taken delivery of Bulk

Bitumen as per his own admitted case in his

statement under Section 313 CrPC.

25. Thus, all the offences as has been alleged to have

been committed by the Appellant stands established

and proved beyond doubt leaving no scope for any

interference.

26. The findings of the Trial Court and the High Court

with regard to conviction are affirmed.

27. As regards the quantum of punishment is concerned,

the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along

with a fine under Sections 407 and 420 of the IPC on

each count. In addition, the Appellant has been

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of two years along with a fine under Sections

465 and 471 of the IPC on each count. All the

sentences have been directed to run concurrently. As

per the record, the Appellant has already undergone

a period of 1 year and 6 months of the said sentences.

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 17 of 18

28. The offences under which the Appellant is convicted

do not provide for any minimum imprisonment to be

imposed and the maximum imprisonment provided

under Section 407 and 420 IPC is seven years.

29. The records produced before this Court indicate that

the Appellant is a 71-year-old individual who is

afflicted with various age-related ailments. The

medical documentation further reveals that the

Appellant is a diabetic person and has a history of

having suffered three heart attacks. That apart, the

incident is of the year 1994 i.e. more than 30 years

old causing mental trauma and agony as faced by the

Appellant. All these factors in the facts and

circumstances of this case persuade us to take a

lenient view.

30. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the sentences

imposed under Section 407 and 420 of IPC be

reduced to 2 years and 6 months of rigorous

imprisonment from 5 years with fine and default

punishment unchanged as imposed on each count

and to run concurrently with other sentences. This

reduced sentence would meet the end of justice.

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page 18 of 18

31. It is reported that the appellant is on bail.

The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled and

he is directed to surrender within four weeks from

today to serve out the remaining

sentence, failing which, the concerned police

authorities shall take him into custody.

32. The present appeal is partly allowed in the above

terms.

33. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

……...……….……………………..J.

[ B. R. GAVAI ]

……..………..……………………..J.

[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 30, 2025